please do something about the manual - the online version would be enough.

This is the first AGEOD game which I've found to be unreservedly disappointing. It's partly because the engine (as is) is unsuited to the topic. It's partly because some of the systems seem not to have been fully thought through - I won't nominate them because the count's still rising. But it's mainly because the documentation is execrable and I'm spending more time trying to glean essential information from the board than I am actually playing the game. That doesn't leave much room for a satisfying, let alone joyful, gaming experience.

I understand that Altaris has other commitments and that the game is being re-shaped within those, but I fear that by the time that's done it will have acquired such a bad rep that the effort will have been wasted. The single biggest thing that might be done to avoid that is to give players the information they require to make a decent fist of playing the game as it stands - and that means directing effort into a comprehensive revision of the manual.

The most recent omission I've noticed is the absence of any explanation as to what riverine naval units do. One can make a fair enough guess at what the transport function is, but not about the utility of River Monitors - they appear to do nothing useful at all.

Immediately before that came the surprise that there was not even a mention of minefields, let alone an explanation of how they worked or might be dealt with.

Before that came the puzzle over what, if any, effect "supernumerary" leaders might contribute to a unit's effectiveness. It tells us that a Corps leader can provide bonuses to the corps and that these can be in addition to any gained from the leader of the stack to which the corps belongs, but it doesn't indicate whether these bonuses come from any special abilities that the corps leader might have, or from his combat ratings, or simply from the command point advantage that he can bring. And it says nothing about what if any bonuses might accrue from a "divisional" leader attached to a corps operating as an independent stack, or additional corps leaders in an army stack for that matter.

Before that came the surprise that there were things called "magazines" and "ammo dumps" which are apparently something akin to "depots" but not the same.

Before that was puzzle over whether submarines have any combat function. The only references to them concern their function in commerce warfare so it would seem not, but it would be nice to have that confirmed since I've seen sub fleets eliminated in naval combats.

I'm happy to continue if it would help, but the picture I'm trying to paint is one in which the player is continually being required to commit to decisions from an unavoidably incomplete knowledge base. It's one thing to expect a player to be able to draw his/her own conclusions from a set of broad principles, but another altogether to expect this to happen when these principles can only be accessed through inferences drawn from the experience of other contributors to the board.

well, i agree they should more elaborate on bonuses/maluses pased from army/corps leader to subordinate leaders, how stats/traits are counted, but thats all.

and yes, explanation of minefileds and how they work - if they work at all - will be nice too.

all other problems are easy to solve by just thinking.

river monitors, with some history knowlenge is is extremly easy to solve, since in history monitors were combat ships which served on shore defence or rivers. so thier function in game is very easy - to patrol rivers/coast and fight enemy shipping if encoutered.one can say, that by just looking at thier stats and comparing them to river tranports, will say - boot are river bound, so they have same rules to operate, but hey, looking at thieer stats is saying they have bigger combat value, so they will serve as thier escorts or to combat at rivers.

magazines/ammo dumps - lol, just hoower over thir picture, at it will say all, they store mainly ammo for artys with very low of supply amount, exactly oposite of normal supply train.

subs, yes, more elaboration on them will be very welcomed, but it seems they onlyest use for them is in merchant box , since they have very low combat value and well, so only useful for central powers there, so for entete is fully ok to use them in naval combat, but cant expect anything from them.i looked at them carefuly, but it look that they lack any special trait (e.q. submersible), so while in reality they were deadly against any unescorted capital ship, here in game any unescorted capital ship will wipe they out due to combat strenght difference, and subs high evasion/hide dont help them in combat.but yeah, subs only units can be useful for just spoting/scouting purposes since they have nice hide value.

if you have more questions, just post them there, this is what forums are for.

I accept that you can pretty much figure out what magazines and ammo dumps are for but I'm having difficulty understanding practical difference between the two. My point, though, is why should I have to stop my game and beg information from the board when a line or two in the manual could provide that. Beyond that comes the lingering question of, "Okay, I've now just had two unknown entities dumped on me, how many more are waiting out there?"

As far as River Monitors go, ship on ship combat wasn't in fact their historical function - that was the roll of River Gunboats (monitors couldn't pivot their main armament sufficiently quickly or produce the necessary rate of fire required by that role). River Monitors like their sea-born counterparts were intended for the bombardment role and were generally armed with heavier, slower-firing weapons to be used against shore fortifications. In the Austrian assault on Belgrade, for example, they had a significant effect on civilian morale by sporadically lobbing shells into the city precincts. In EAW they are specifically denied any ability to bombard anything at all.

I'm very grateful for the board and the help I've received here, but the devs should not be relying on it to do the job a manual is designed for. The intricacy of the interface and the complexity of the factor mix make organising a single turn very demanding and one would like to think all the effort expended in planning one's moves wouldn't be knocked into a cocked-hat by features popping up out of the blue or mechanisms that are insufficiently described. Of course it's possible to play EAW fast and loose and not let what you don't know worry you, but if that's the kind of game AGEOD was aiming for here they've wasted a hell of a lot of effort putting in detail that's going to be ignored anyway.

Properly documented this could be a splendid game within its systems limitations; but I fear the frustration it breeds is likely to turn potential "big-game" players away in droves before its 'splendiferousness' is ever achieved.

I do not read manuals. I might refer to them once I am stumped, but really, these games cannot possibly cover every question anyone has in a manual.I do not wish to read, I play to discover. I do understand your concern/complaint as I typically do deep reading into obscure texts, but with games I just play and discover.One thing I love about all AGEOD games is the discovery found in play. I do not want a game which says, 'if you do this and then this, you will win.'I wish to get kick hard in the tush and then, and only then, the light shines in.

I'm half-way with you, Durk. For me the joy of a game is not in the winning but in the mastering of the skills it takes to win. However, I see those skills as centering around strategy, tactics, planning, and organisation, not unearthing basic facts as to what the features provided in the game actually do. To draw a crude analogy, I wouldn't want to find myself on a football pitch not knowing that the keeper was the only person who could handle the ball, that a "forward pass" was something more than a pass that went forward, or that tackling an opponent couldn't be done in the same way as it is in rugby.

well, for ammo/supply dumps - well thier use is simple, eighter in manual or is some in game tooltip it is mentioned that ammo is used only by artys and navy ships, unlike in other games in which it was used by all.

for river monitors, well you may be right in thier use for bombardement compared to normal fighting agaist other ships, but well since in game you dont have separate river monitors and river combat ships (or at least i dont recal it), so it is onlyest river combat ships left.

You're dead right on your first point, czerto - I think it's medium arty, heavy and super-heavy arty, and naval. But I was complaining about the lack of any information on the difference between ammo dumps and magazines that might help me decide on which ones to build, keep, or destroy. If they have different functions in the game what are the differences, and if they don't then why do we need both of them?

On the river fleets, again I can see how the simplification you suggest could arise. But if river fleets are only there to fight other river fleets what possible impact can they have on the game? If it's to whittle down the enemy's river transport potential then their "destructive" power is hardly worth the effort of sending them out - so why not really simplify and do without them altogether.

In both cases my argument is that if a feature is included in the game there should be a reason for its inclusion other than its cosmetic appeal. And if there is a reason then the player is entitled to know what that reason is.

well, regarding ammo/supply units, i think it self explanatory if you look at supply unit showing it is storing only supply and for ammo dump storing only ammo, so differenc is clear, but i agree with you that manual dont clearly say for what suppy/ammo is and how it is used (and by which units). For better planing of building these units.And if you look that some major offences were simply tied to (heavy) arty ammo stocks/production, it is justified to split ammo and supply to separate units. But yeah, i miss that game miss bombard enemy positions(trenchces), similiar to bomb enemy fort, but with more general use (and same ammo depletion ).

For river ships, well firstly i found funny that france do have build river sqadrons, but cant build new, but that is just fun note. More on matter of debate, i think river monitors do have use in game (which role is not greatly writen in manual), aside from obbvious sinking enemy ships (tranports/monitors), and while river tranports is very rarery used by ai/player, monitors look usless, but they do have nice tactical role (not clerly stated in manual), and that is bloking of enemy crosing (navigable) river if you have monitors here or adjanced to that river part. this way you can block enemy crossing of river without any land units, untill enemy force your monitors out by own ships, or simply untill river freeze.

If you're correct about River Monitors blocking river crossings then I must be doing something seriously wrong, czerto. Playing as CP I've had River Monitor flotillas plying the Middle Sava in at least a dozen games and not once have they prevented Serb units from crossing.

well, i dont remember blocking of river crossing by monitor too,, but i allways asumed they do have this abilitity, since ability to bock rivver crosing is there, i know it, my units were blocked from crossing suez canal by enemy battleships, and they were just next to it, not in it.So i asumed that river monitors have thi ability too, if not, then yeah, rivver monitos will be usless in game, since river tranport is extremly rare in game.